Hemphill v. State, 89-KA-0048
| Decision Date | 08 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-KA-0048,89-KA-0048 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 207 |
| Parties | Ronald Jerry HEMPHILL v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
G. Jyles Eaves, Eaves & Eaves, Louisville, for appellant.
Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., W. Glenn Watts, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this case, a lawful search of Ronald Hemphill's residence yielded nearly a kilogram of marijuana, a handgun, and a so-called "drug" scale. Hemphill was arrested and ultimately indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
In October 1988, at the Winston County Circuit Court, Hemphill was convicted by a jury, sentenced to ten years imprisonment, and fined $3,000. Hemphill appealed and presents three issues which will be addressed individually in the following analysis.
II. ANALYSIS
Hemphill first contends that he did not receive a fair trial for the following reasons. He believes the circuit judge should not have allowed the State to introduce at trial the marijuana seized from his residence because of a broken "chain of custody" and because of the possibility of "tampering." For support, he explains that the marijuana was not properly sealed in "evidence bags" and, as a consequence, marijuana residue was able to seep through "holes or openings" when the bags were shaken. Hemphill also explains that the marijuana was "handled" by a Mississippi Crime Laboratory analyst, Steve Howard, "who is no longer so employed" and who did not testify at the trial. Hemphill finally explains that the circuit judge should not have refused to direct John Maddox, another analyst, to reveal during testimony why Howard was no longer employed by the crime lab; the judge's refusal was based on "irrelevancy."
In sum, Hemphill seems to infer that: (1) because marijuana residue could seep from the evidence bags in which the "leafy green substance" was placed, and (2) because the marijuana was handled by an analyst who "mysteriously" is "no longer employed by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory" and who did not testify, (3) the chain of custody was broken, "tampering" possibly occurred and, thus, Hemphill did not receive a fair trial.
2. Relevant Law
In Gibson v. State, 503 So.2d 230, 234 (Miss.1987), this Court opined:
[T]he test for the continuous possession [i.e., "chain of custody"] of evidence is whether or not there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence.
See Barnette v. State, 478 So.2d 800, 804 (Miss.1985); Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381, 1388 (Miss.1983); see also Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 312 (Miss.1984); Grady v. State, 274 So.2d 141, 143 (Miss.1973). "In such matters, the presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers," and the burden to produce evidence of a broken chain of custody (i.e., tampering) is on the defendant. Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652, 653 (Miss.1978), quoted in Barnette, 478 So.2d at 804.
3. The Law Applied to the Case
Hemphill failed to meet the burden imposed by law; that is, he failed to produce evidence of a broken chain of custody or of tampering. Instead, the record reveals that the marijuana seized at Hemphill's residence was taken to the Starkville branch of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics--where it was "packaged," "sealed," "identified," "initialed," "locked up," and transported to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory in Jackson for storage and testing; this was "standard operating procedure." Upon arrival in Jackson, the sealed evidence was given a case number and an exhibit number; it was then "logged in," "initialed," and placed into an "evidence vault." The marijuana was tested both by Howard (the ex-analyst) and by Maddox (the other analyst). Each time either of the analysts conducted tests: (1) the bags containing the marijuana were "logged out of the vault"; (2) the seals were broken; (3) the marijuana was tested; and (4) the bags were resealed and placed back into the vault. The uncontroverted testimony showed that the "condition" and amount of marijuana presented during the trial was "the same" (with the exception of some molding) as that which was seized from Hemphill's residence.
Hemphill's only support for his contentions regarding a broken chain of custody and tampering (i.e., seeping marijuana and an ex-analyst who did not testify) is at best tenuous and at worst unpersuasive. Admittedly, the seeping of residue is indicative of improper sealing. But how the seeping was, or might have been, prejudicial to Hemphill's receipt of a fair trial was neither enunciated nor hypothesized during the trial or in his brief. And if Hemphill believed that Howard's "mysterious" unemployment status may have had some prejudicial meaning, then discovery or a subpoena (to compel Howard to testify) was the appropriate means to unravelling the "mystery." Notably, after the judge refused to direct Maddox to explain why Howard was no longer employed, Hemphill immediately requested and received from Maddox information regarding Howard's whereabouts--so that he could "subpoena him here." What Hemphill did with this information is unknown. The record reflects that he failed to subpoena Howard and did not request more time to investigate Howard's reasons for being "no longer employed." The record is also devoid of motions, objections, or anything regarding Hemphill's half-hearted pursuit of such information. All this notwithstanding, this Court does feel compelled to digress for a moment and opine that the circuit judge should have required Maddox to reveal why Howard is no longer employed with the Crime Lab, at least in camera, before deciding whether such testimony would have been relevant. In other words, trial judges should become more involved in the pursuit of the "truth." In this case, the judge's failure to become more involved was harmless and does not warrant reversal.
In sum, this is not a "hard" case. The testimony unequivocally evinces an unbroken chain of custody and "there is [no] indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence." Gibson v. State, 503 So.2d 230, 234 (Miss.1987). This Court holds that Hemphill received a fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haddox v. State, 91-KA-00652
...has previously admitted into evidence guns as "tools of the trade" evidence. Martin v. State, 413 So.2d 730 (Miss.1982), Hemphill v. State, 566 So.2d 207 (Miss.1990). However, they argue, money is not relevant, and if so, it is substantially more prejudicial than probative, citing M.R.E. 40......
-
Roundtree v. State
...aside, Fox's "slip" should be deemed harmless since no evidence exists to show that the outcome of the case was affected. Hemphill v. State, 566 So.2d 207 (Miss.1990). In sum, this Court rejects Eula's contentions on both substantive and procedural D. Issue No. 4 1. The jury found Eula guil......
-
McCoy v. State
...which could lead a reasonable juror to conclude he was also storing the scales, brass knuckles, and gun there.8 See Hemphill v. State, 566 So.2d 207, 209 (Miss.1990) (guns and scales are “tools of the drug trade” and generally relevant in drug cases); see also Martin v. State, 413 So.2d 730......
-
Jones v. State, 97-KA-01343-SCT.
...custody. However, "the burden to produce evidence of a broken chain of custody (i.e., tampering) is on the defendant." Hemphill v. State, 566 So.2d 207, 208 (Miss.1990) (citing Nix, 276 So.2d at 653) (emphasis added). Additionally, "[m]atters regarding the chain of custody of evidence are l......